Firefighters forced to smash window of driverless Cruise taxi to stop it

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

ctoth wrote: post #30

a4isms wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is recognizing that we are nowhere near ready for driverless cars. With "ordinary" software, you can look at all of the use cases and if you solve 5% of them in a really good way, you can be successful, users will self-select whether those 5% of the use cases are valuable for them, and then not use your software for anything else. With driverless self-driving vehicles, you have no such comfort. Even if y…

Just a quick note, as a blind person waiting impatiently for the driverless future, there are other uses for driverless vehicles than just making some random person money.

Post by lflux » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #56

lflux wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefighters practically salivate at the possibility of smashing the windows of a car parked in front of a hydrant they need to access for supply. This isn't much different.

So? In both cases, the cars are impeding their urgent work. It's not like firefighters are just going around smashing windows on cars that aren't doing something very, very wrong.

Post by kube-system » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

jxf wrote: post #31

redtriumph wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like having support for interpreting human gestures will solve some of the problems. But how do we distinguish real emergency scenario from fake one? Such kinds of problems will only scale up as we apply L5 cars take on more public roads, but I wonder how long or what changes will have to be done in current road signs, critical city infra to support them.

> But how do we distinguish real emergency scenario from fake one? A car shouldn't make that call. It should err on the side of safety and assuming the emergency is real. When you see flashing lights on the highway coming up behind you, do you think "I bet that ambulance is faking it so they can get home faster", or do you just move over?

Post by a4isms » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 10:13 PM UTC

buzzert wrote: post #28

a4isms wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is recognizing that we are nowhere near ready for driverless cars. With "ordinary" software, you can look at all of the use cases and if you solve 5% of them in a really good way, you can be successful, users will self-select whether those 5% of the use cases are valuable for them, and then not use your software for anything else. With driverless self-driving vehicles, you have no such comfort. Even if y…

I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. > We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society. How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive…

Post by thangalin » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 10:14 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #64

alexfromapex wrote: post #47

This is going to slowly evolve into "law enforcement needs a killswitch" which is a scary thought

Eh, of all the threats I can think of, law enforcement being able to killswitch autopilot on my car is not even gonna make the top 100. Whether on the run for crimes or being pursued by sinister oppressors the automotive autopilot is not gonna be a key margin of liberty. And being able to HERF any vehicle dead is probably coming no matter what: https://boingboing.net/2018/04/30/zapguns-r-us.html On the other hand, I…